It was one of those rare weeks in here - productive and free of sensation. It won't last, of course, especially with Frank Dunlop about to re-enter the tribunal box and, if reports are accurate, ready to sing loud and long.
We will see, but as far as most people in here are concerned, the sooner he does what he is going to do the better. In the month since he made his allegations names have been left hanging in the air, speculation has run rife, and some almost certainly innocent and honest people have had their reputations hurt.
Much that is positive is being said about the Flood tribunal, and rightly so, but for the life of him, Drapier cannot understand why the tribunal did not call Frank Dunlop back as soon as he recovered and allow him to finish his evidence, and in particular to name the 15 people to whom he allegedly paid money. At least they would have an opportunity to defend or explain themselves and the speculating game - sometimes malicious in Drapier's view - could be brought to an end.
As things stand, we are now all fair game. Rezoning votes can be picked at random and significance read into them. People who voted honestly and conscientiously on planning matters, people who went to the trouble of informing themselves and took a view different to the planners - as was their right - now find themselves lumped in with those who allegedly took bribes.
Drapier has seen at first hand the devastation all of this has caused to colleagues who are utterly honest and honourable, and he has seen the hurt visited on their families. In the eyes of some commentators the very fact of voting is to be guilty. It all makes for good and easy copy, and Drapier has no illusions that an appeal for fair play will meet any response. All the more reason not to leave things hanging around indefinitely.
One aspect of the Dunlop fallout has been to force all of us to think hard about some of the fundamentals of our trade. Part of our problem is that our system has developed in such a haphazard way. Instead of recognising that political parties are an essential part of the system of democracy, and as such needing to be supported and supervised like any other arm of Government, our Constitution makes no mention of parties at all.
As a result, what law we have on parties is a result of ad hoc reaction to various crises, instead of a rational, comprehensive attempt to construct a legal and, if necessary, constitutional framework. Other countries do this and accept the reality that political parties need to be funded to carry out the variety of necessary functions including research, communication publicity, training and the like. In turn, they need to be accountable for all money received and spent.
Drapier read with interest John Bruton's speech yesterday along these lines. Drapier has long felt that rather than ad hoc proposals which lurch us from one crisis to the next we need an overhaul of our party law, underpinned by a clear set of defining principles and an acceptance that in the age-old words of Walter Bagehot, "without parties, parliament could not function" and therefore parties should be funded as in every other area of public life.
It will not be easy. There are many difficult questions to be resolved, especially if some measure of private funding is to continue. Most party funding is small scale and open - raffles, church gate collections, golf classics, race nights and the like. Many subscriptions come from genuine well-wishers. People have a right to support parties or candidates or policies by giving a donation. New parties have a right to break into the system.
It is time we faced up to these questions, not in a bickering, partisan way, but on an all-party basis, recognising that, by and large, our system has worked, our politics are and have been honest, but unless we bring in real and radical reforms, all of us are in danger of being tarred with the brush of the few who have disgraced us all.
To more mundane matters. The word now is that we will not be heading to south Tipperary until the autumn at the earliest. The election date is Labour's call and had Mrs Ellen Ferris been at all enthusiastic we would have been packing our bags this very weekend, each of us assigned to a parish or a polling area, each of us enjoined to leave no stone unturned to ensure that every vote was got out. Clearly, however, Mrs Ferris needs more time and the odds are no more than 50/50 that she will let her name go forward. If she does not, it will be a big blow to Labour and to Ruairi Quinn's hope of winning four by-elections.
The odds on Martin Mansergh being a candidate for Fianna Fail are lengthening also. He certainly would have been different, a dash of posh and polish in the style of Erskine Childers, and he does still have significant backing at the top levels of the party. Apparently, however, the grass roots have been well and truly watered by the local aspirants and Martin may have to wait a little longer before converting from mandarin to backbencher.
Meanwhile back in Leinster House, Brian Lenihan's constitutional committee has done a very good week's work. It was strange to see the eminent psychologists, gynaecologists and obstetricians sitting in the Seanad chamber and going through their paces. The most striking aspect of it all was the absence of hysteria, name-calling and the imputations of bad faith which normally characterise debate on this issue. Most of us shudder at the memories of the earlier debates, the fanaticism, intolerance and sheer nastiness which engulfed those campaigns.
No doubt there is plenty of the same lurking out there, awaiting the right opportunity, but it was singularly absent from the Seanad chamber this week. Brian Lenihan's style of chairing set the tone and there was some effective questioning, especially from Jim O'Keeffe, Liz McManus, Kathleen O'Meara and Tom Enright. It showed too that the committees can be effective without being adversarial, and undoubtedly this week the debate was moved on significantly.
Moved on to where is another question. As Drapier listened to the witnesses he came to the conclusion that the worst way to go would be through a constitutional amendment, that no form of words is going to meet the requirements of all and that as a mature and responsible parliament we can be and should be entrusted to do what is right. Not that our bona fides will be accepted by the hardliners, and we may find ourselves facing an unwanted referendum for the worst of all reasons - pressure from the four Independent TDs. Quite frankly, the issue is too serious to be left to that sort of treatment.